Nothing in Biology Obtains Clarity…In Light of Evolution

There are a vast array of many complex explanations concerning Darwinian evolution, many of which get falsified down the road with better data. As a result, evolution in biology gets murky rather than clearer. The emergence of diverse forms of living things has been firmly fixed in Darwinian dogma for the last 150 years. But now it’s become a “puzzle” according to science daily which elaborates on this dilemma…

“Biologists have long thought that interactions between plants and pollinating insects hasten evolutionary changes and promote biological diversity. However, new findings show that some interactions between plants and pollinators are less likely to increase diversity than previously thought, and in some instances, reduce it.”

Researchers found by studying specialized moths that pollinate the Joshua tree reveal a contradiction in evolutionary expectations, “no evidence that local populations of moths adapt to local populations of Joshua trees.” It took 150 years to find this out.  One researcher boasted that the discovery verified his own theory which is perhaps one of the reasons why he was conducting this research in the first place but opposite conclusions within a particular framework such as Darwinian evolution is not good science.

Then he concludes his evolutionary story, “But different interactions can have very different effects — some increase diversity, some don’t increase diversity at all, and some can even reduce diversity.” Where’s the proof? This expectation hasn’t been throughly tested at all, it’s another falsification waiting to happen.

Evolutionists have long thought they knew the reason why some plants, such as cacti and grasses, use an alternative form of photosynthesis called C4.  According to a new study reported in physorg, their conclusion was wrong…

“A new analysis of fossilized grass-pollen grains deposited on ancient European lake and sea bottoms 16-35 million years ago reveals that C4 grasses evolved earlier than previously thought.  This new evidence casts doubt on the widely-held belief that the rise of this incredibly productive group of plants was driven by a large drop in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations during the Oligocene epoch…”

In other words, the evolutionary framework by which they are going by is not making any sense which happens a lot with better data…“The idea that C4 grasses originated prior to global decreases in carbon dioxide levels requires us to reevaluate the way we think about the evolution of C4 photosynthesis,” Dr. David Nelson said.

Where is the evidence that proves “nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution”? Where is the light?  Where is the sense? These new discoveries are very common in evolutionary research papers. A good theory obtains clarity with better data even though it may not have all the answers, a bad ‘theory’ in this case, evolution which obtains more complexity as a result of numerous falsifications

Advertisements

4 thoughts on “Nothing in Biology Obtains Clarity…In Light of Evolution

  1. Well, jeepers; evolution has been falsified again.

    >> Biologists ahd thought pollinating insects increased plant diversity. Now we find that this happens only sometimes.

    Obviously, this new results proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that plants could not possibly have derived from a common ancestor.

    >> A new analysis reveals that C4 photosynthesis evolved earlier than previously thought. And it did not arise from decreasing amounts of atmospheric CO2..

    Finding these 16-35 million year old fossils thus proves that the Earth is only 6,000 years old. Finding that CO2 was not a selection factor for a specific photosynthesis process clearly shows that no natural selection has ever happened.

    >> People have long thought that red traffic lights immediately change to green, without any intermediate states. However, I have now found through extensive investigation that some traffic signals in the UK display a brief yellow light when switching from red to green.

    This throws a huge spanner into the theory that traffic lights control the motion of vehicles on streets and highways.

    .

    But perhaps all is not lost. Science Daily reports that an evolutionary model has already been developed which shows diversity loss in some cases. PhysOrg notes that researchers are already investigating the role of factors other than CO2 abundance—such as temperature and humidity. I am confident that I can explain anomalous UK traffic signals from the large number of manual-transmissions in UK automobiles.

    So results contrary to predictions in science leads to further research and alternative explanations. In contrast to creationism, which never seeks to explain anything, and therefore can never progress.

    Michael decries: “Where is the evidence that proves ‘nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution’?” We might ask him to show anything at all that makes sense in the light of special creation. What predictions does it make that link any biological phenomena together? What relationships does it elucidate? What research does it prompt? What practical applications has it ever found?

    By not understanding the operation of the scientific process and the nature of theories, Michael demonstrates once again his total lack of qualification to essay upon any aspect of science. That is, unless he would care to meet the challenge he laid down last February, and divulge his background in astrology, alchemy, exorcism, or related scientific subjects.

  2. Michael,
    You give a quote about certain species of plant being less likely to diversify….And your point is?–It doesn’t follow that they do not, or cannot evolve.

    There ARE mechanism CONSISTENT with evolutionary theory WHICH ACTUALLY RESIST change..for a long time anyway.

    An example of this is called Genetic Homeostasis. This particular mechanism actually causes a species to resist change ….IF the population of the certain species is wide spread and particularly large. That is because we will have plenty of individuals mating with others thus ridding the populations of some unique, new mutations, this keeping the population static.

    Then you say In other words, the evolutionary framework by which they are going by is not making any sense which happens a lot with better data…“The idea that C4 grasses originated prior to global decreases in carbon dioxide levels requires us to reevaluate the way we think about the evolution of C4 photosynthesis,” Dr. David Nelson said. Where is the evidence that proves “nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution”? Where is the light? Where is the sense? These new discoveries are very common in evolutionary research papers.”

    Michael, all the quote says is that there is a certain re-evaluation. And this re-evaluation came with the light of new data..This is not inconsistent with evolution..

    Not to mention you seem to have completely miss what Theodosius Dobzhansky actually says when he said when he gave his famous quote “Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution”..And obviously, you haven’t read his essay in which he said it because he gives a lot of evidence to back up the statement.

    You could only have asked “Where is the light” if you either hadn’t read his essay, or wish to only discount what he actually says.

    Essay link here: http://www.2think.org/dobzhansky.shtml

  3. Kris, speaking of Dobzhansky, I recently received my own copy of D’Arcy Wentworth Thompson’s 1916 book (actually, 2d ed, 1941) classic, On Growth and Form. (This is the complete Dover edition, not the condensation that Amazon tries to palm off.)

    I have a feeling I’ll be diving into it frequently and at length. The mathematical underpinnings of prototypical evolutionary change—only recently renvoied in the new discipline of evo-devo. Thompson was way ahead of his time.

  4. “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.”

    This is true in the same sense that nothing in chemistry makes sense except in the light of the periodic table.

    The chemical elements had always seemed to have little in common with each other, except that they could not be further reduced. The periodic table organizes them in a coherent order, pointing out similarities and differences and relationships. New elements wee found because interesting holes appeared in the table. The properties of elements were deduced even before they were discovered, based upon the table.

    This is the sense in which evolution gives sense to biology as a whole. It organizes and relates living beings to each other, where nothing else does. The “tree of life” relates living things to each other. Just as the periodic table does not predict many aspects of the elements, evolution does not predict all aspects of life. But it is sufficient to predict many qualities, to foster research into promising areas, and to see aspects that would otherwise be invisible.

    If you doubt this, try to predict the spread of a gene through a population from the theory of special creation. Try to predict anything at all from the theory of special creation.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s